Category Archives: Psychology

Do Self-Reports on Drinking Motives Reflect Actual Alcohol Consumption in Real-Life Scenarios?

Posted on December 12, 2012 by Becca| Leave a comment

 

What motivates someone to drink has been linked to the amount of alcohol one typically consumes.  Previously on The Academic Wino, a study was presented that showed people consuming alcohol for “positive” reasons (such as the taste or the health benefits of the wine) did not typically express problem drinking behaviors, whereas people consuming alcohol for “negative” reasons (such as reducing anxiety, coping with stress, or peer pressure) are much more likely to experience problem drinking behavior.

Some studies have shown that those that are motivated by internal factors, such as drinking to have fun or drinking to forget personal problems, are much more likely to drink more heavily than those that are motivated by external factors, such as drinking to be socialor drinking to fit in with the group.  The thinking is that those that are influenced by internal factors will tend to drink not only when

Philippe Mercier (circa 1689(1689)-1760) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

they are with other people, but also when they are all alone, whereas those that are influence by external factors will only tend to drink when in the company of a group of people.  To generalize, those influenced by external factors tend to be more moderate drinkers overall than heavy drinkers.

To date, nearly all of the studies focused on motivation for drinking have relied upon self-reporting by the participants themselves, a method by which is known to suffer from bias.  To be more specific, there could be errors in the self-reporting data due to forgetfulness of past events, as well as guilt or embarrassment by the participant in regards to how much they actually drink on a regular basis.

To combat this issue of bias in self-reporting, the study presented today combined self-reporting with a wine tasting experiment, in order to determine if drinking motives as reported by participants were able to predict the amount of alcohol consumed during the tasting sessions some time later or if the answers supplied by participants inaccurately represented their drinking habits in actual drinking situations.

Methods

Participants were recruited in the fall of 2010 from Lausanne University in Switzerland and were required to be between the ages of 18 and 25, have no significant health problems or history of substance abuse.

Participants filled out a 10 minute questionnaire that asked questions related to sociodemographics as well as alcohol consumption behavior questions.

A total of 123 subjects participated in all experiments during the study.

As an incentive to participate, subjects were entered into a drawing to win the equivalent of $600 USD, were given money to cover the cost of public transportation to the sessions, and were given a snack after each session.

There were a total of 3 data collection sessions: 1) the questionnaire; 2) a first wine tasting session; and 3) a second wine tasting session. There was a total of 1 month in between each session.

Participants were told that the wine tasting experiments were to determine the influence of human interactions on sensory experiences during the tasting.

Wine tasting sessions were held in an area designed to look like a comfortable bar.  Participants were asked to refrain from drinking any alcoholic beverages within 12 hours before each wine tasting session.

At the start of each tasting, a research assistant went over standard wine tasting protocol with participants.  Participants were each given a spit bucket as well as water.  Participants were told that they were not required to swallow the wines they tasted.

During the tasting sessions, participants were given 4 glasses with 110g of red wine.  The alcohol level of the wine was 13.5%, which translates to about 12g of alcohol per glass of wine.  Each tasting session lasted 25 minutes.

To determine the influence of social context on amount of alcohol consumed, the two tasting sessions were arranged so that either the participants were separated from one another to prevent any interaction or visual contact or they were arranged in groups of 4-8 participants with the ability to interact and be social.  In the group setting, discussions were moderated by the research assistant.  For each tasting session, men and women were kept separately from one another.  Each participant was randomly assigned to a tasting group; in order to (as the authors explained) avoid close friends participating in the same group together.

After the tasting sessions, the amount of wine remaining in the glass for each individual was measured, as well as how much wine was found in the spit buckets for each individual.  The amount of wine left in the glasses and in the spit buckets was subtracted from the original amount of wine presented to the participants, and converted to grams of pure alcohol.  This value represented the total amount of alcohol consumed per tasting session per individual participant.

By CDC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Drinking motives, alcohol use, and problem drinking behavior was analyzed and determined using participants’ responses on a questionnaire.

Drinking motive categories included: 1) enhancement (i.e. drinking to have fun); 2) coping (i.e. drinking to forget personal problems); 3) social (i.e. drinking to be social among peers); and 4) conformity (i.e. drinking to fit in with the group).

 

 

 

 

 

Results

  • 45.5% of participants were male, and 54.5% were female.
  • The mean age of participants was 21.9 years.
  • 17.1% of participants were found to be socially motivated.
    • 52.4% of the socially motivated participants were male and 47.6% were female.
  • 16.3% of participants were found to be enhancement motivated.
    • 55.0% of the enhancement motivated participants were male, and 45% were female.
  • 70.6% of the conformity motive participants were female, while 29.4% were male.
  • 54.5% of participants claimed they drank two or more times per week.
  • 60.2% of participants claimed they drank three or more drinks during a day that they are drinking.
  • 35.0% of participants claimed they had 6 or more drinks during a day that they are drinking.
  • Participants reporting high quantities of drinking or binge drinking tended to be motivated more by enhancement motives than those drinking for any other motive.
  • During the first wine tasting session, an average of 15.6g of alcohol per participant was consumed.
  • During the second wine tasting session, an average of 18.8g of alcohol per participant was consumed.
    • The tendency to drink more during the second session was most notable among participants drinking for coping reasons.
  • Drinking greater amounts of alcohol was associated with high levels of social motivation, as well as a low level of coping or conformity motivation.
  • Men reported drinking more frequently and binge drinking more often than women.
  • For both tasting sessions, men consumed 22.5g more alcohol than women (on average).
    • Men consumed 11g more alcohol than women during the first tasting session, and 11.4g more alcohol during the second tasting session.
    • Looking at each tasting session separately, there were no significant differences between the sexes in regards to alcohol consumption (though it was close).  Taking both tasting sessions together, men consumed significantly more alcohol than women.
  • Those participants starting in the group setting during the tasting sessions consumed 7.9g more alcohol than participants starting in the individual setting.
  • Those participants self-reporting as being motivated by enhancement reasons consumed significantly more alcohol than participants reporting other motivations for drinking.
  •  Those participants self-reporting as being motivated by conformity reasons consumed significantly less alcohol than participants reporting other motivations for drinking.
  • The self-reported motivation for drinking could not predict the amount of alcohol consumed during each tasting session individually, however, self-reported motivation for drinking could predict the total amount of alcohol consumed after both tasting sessions.
  • From the first tasting session to the second tasting session, coping motivated drinkers significantly increased their alcohol consumption.
  • From the first tasting session to the second tasting session, socially motivated drinkers significantly decreased their alcohol consumption.

Conclusions

According to the authors of this study, when taking the amounts of alcohol consumed from both tasting sessions together, the actual amounts of alcohol consumed was very highly correlated with the amounts of alcohol reported by the participants in the questionnaire.  In other words, according to these results, motives for drinking allow one to predict the amount of alcohol consumed by an individual in a particular setting.

The authors also stated that those than are motivated by internal reasons (i.e. drinking for enhancement or coping purposes) tend to take advantage of a drinking situation where alcohol is readily available and free.  The authors claim that this may be a result of their desire to attain the psychoactive effects of the alcohol itself in order to “maximize pleasurable sensations” or perhaps more readily forget their personal problems.  To explain the results of externally motivated participants, the authors surmised that they likely drank lower amounts of alcohol because they tend to be inconsistent in their drinking patterns, and perhaps since they did not know the other people in their tasting groups, they were less likely to drink more.

When looking at the tasting sessions individually, the authors noted that drinking motive could not predict the amount of alcohol consumed per session (particularly the first session).  They reason this result to be potentially due to the nature of the experimental design itself.  Perhaps since participants were not familiar with the tasting procedure they were asked to do, the location they were performing the tastings in, or the other participants they were paired up to taste with, they were uncomfortable with the situation and less likely to consume the

By che (che) [CC-BY-SA-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

same levels of alcohol they would have consumed if they were in a more comfortable and familiar environment.  This may explain why alcohol consumption increased during the tasting session, since at this point, the participants had a chance to get used to the situation and became more comfortable and familiar with the whole thing.

The authors noted some limitations with the study, including the sample size and the way participants actually felt about the wines they were drinking.  The study only included only 123 college students between the ages of 19 and 24, which is certainly not representative of the general population. Would older participants when placed in the same situations yield similar results? Or would there be significant differences in drinking motivation and alcohol consumption behavior across generations?

In regards to not testing how the participants felt about the wine they were consuming, I feel as though this could potentially have significant consequences on the overall results (or not…I’m not completely certain).  What if a significant proportion of participants don’t drink wine to begin with?  They then may not be consuming the amount of alcohol they normally would be under a given situation due to simply not liking beverage used in the study.  Perhaps they would drink even more if they had been handed fruity mixed drinks instead of red wine.  After all, studied do show that younger individuals drink more of these types of beverages than wine (in general) when compared to their older counterparts.

Overall, the results of this study confirm that self-reported drinking behavior is correlated with the actual amount of alcohol consumed during a wine tasting session.  I would be hesitant to say this with complete confidence, mainly based on the limitations I just discussed in the previous two paragraphs.  I think the results are interesting and certainly a good start, however, I think these limitations would need to be addressed before I am completely convinced these results to be accurate and reflective upon the general population.

What did you all think of this study? What would you like to have seen differently? Maybe I’m being too harsh regarding the limitations: do you think these limitations are insignificant to the results? Please feel free to comment!

Source: Kuntsche, E., and Kuendig, H. 2012. Beyond Self Reports: Drinking Motives Predict Grams of Consumed Alcohol in Wine-Tasting Sessions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 20(4): 318-324.

Posted in Psychology

Tagged , , , , ,

What Motivates You to Drink?: Comparing Reasons For Drinking with Problem Drinking in Australian Adults

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Becca| Leave a comment

In July of last year, The Academic Wino covered a paper that examined the perceived healthiness of wine, and whether or not that perception led to an increase in wine consumption frequency and an increase in willingness to pay for a bottle of wine.  The authors found that if subjects believed wine to be healthy, it did in fact increase the frequency of consumption of wine and increased consumers’ willingness to pay per bottle of red wine.  One study found that 39%-88% of people in Western countries believe alcohol to be health, particularly when it comes to wine.

The same authors are back again to expand on this finding:  what about other motives for drinking?  Is the perceived healthiness of wine more important when it comes to frequency of consumption or is taste a more important motivator?

Photo by isante_magazine: http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4086/5057195715_74f63d6cca.jpg

Specifically, the authors sought to examine a variety of motives for drinking and correlate them with drinking behaviors in an adult population, which up until now has largely been studied only in younger populations such as college students.

The study utilized what is known as the “Drinking Motives model”, the purpose of which is to highlight both positive factors (social and mood motives) and negative factors (coping and conformity motives).  Some studies have found these motives to correlate with “problem drinking” (not clearly defined as alcoholism), though that has not been the result in other studies.  It is also not clear whether or not these motives for drinking change as an individual ages, or if these motives remain consistent throughout an individuals’ life.  Some researchers speculate that older people will “grow out” of these motives and evolve different motives for consumption, but there has been little to no evidence presented thus far.

In wine preference research, it is often found that taste is a primary driver of consumption behavior.  One study found that younger consumers tend to drink sweeter mixed drinks, while older consumers drink more wines and/or beer.  The authors note that one problem with this study is that the “older” consumers were only between the ages of 24-30, which in the grand scheme of things is still relatively young.

In regards to social cues, campaigns are often focused on reducing the levels of alcohol consumed in order to reduce the potential threat of overconsumption and all the negative associations that follow the behavior.  In fact, some believe that by promoting alcohol as healthy, this could lead to overconsumption.  It is not clear whether this belief is true, and whether or not wine consumption follows the same patterns as other types of alcohol consumption.

Photo by The Academic Wino: November 2008.

The authors of the study presented today aimed to address these questions by examining a variety of motives for drinking in older adults, and whether or not these motives were in any way associated with problem drinking.

Methods

Participants (older than 18 years of age) were recruited into the study by way of an Australian national telephone survey.  A wide variety of individuals coming from many backgrounds were selected, filling quotas for race, sex, income, state, and postcode.  Those participating were told the study was focused on alcoholic beverages and that questions revolved around alcohol preference, consumption patterns, and other factors that are related to drinking.

The phone survey lasted from 20 to 25 minutes, and included questions related to adult’s motives for drinking (ex. taste and health motives) and possible issues related to problem drinking using the CAGE questionnaire (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye-opener).

The reasons for drinking in this study reflected those outlined in the Cooper’s Drinking Motives model, a model that which states the use of alcohol is driven by the desire to reduce negative feelings and increase positive feelings about consuming the beverage.  For this study, reasons for drinking focused on responses to the following:

  • “I drink X beverage because…”
    • “…it makes me feel good.”
    • “…it reduces my level of anxiety.”
    • “…it makes me more outgoing.”
    • “…most of my friends drink it.”
    • “…I like the taste.”
    • “…I believe it is healthy for me.”

For determining possible problem drinking, the CAGE questionnaire as mentioned above was employed.  This questionnaire is based on four questions:

  • “Have you ever felt the need to cut down on drinking?”
  • “Have you ever been annoyed by others criticizing your drinking?”
  • “Have you ever felt guilty about your drinking?”
  • “Have you felt you’ve needed a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves or get rid of a hangover?”

The authors note the CAGE questionnaire does not allow for diagnosing alcoholism, and merely characterizes some individuals as “problem drinkers”.

Participants were categorized as being “wine drinkers”, “beer drinkers”, “spirit drinkers”, or “premixed drink drinkers” if they drank that one type of beverage 90% or more of the time.

The goals of the study were to 1) determine the motives behind why participants drink; 2) how do CAGE scores relate to the reasons cited for drinking; 3) how do CAGE scores relate to the type of beverage consumed; and 4) how do beverage type and motive for drinking predict CAGE scores?

Results

Demographics

  • 1229 Australians participated in the phone survey with a mean age of 50.13 years (S.D. 16.14).
  • Income was highly correlated with age, and was not looked at further in this study.
  • 55% of participants were female.
    • Women were more likely to drink wine than beer.
    • Men drank similar amounts of beer and wine.
  • For those preferring a single beverage type, 67% were categorized as wine drinkers.
    • 50% of the total participant pool did not prefer one particular type of beverage most of the time.

Motives

  • 86% of participants reported that taste was the biggest motivatorfor drinking.
    • This result was found for all preferred types of alcohol.
  • “Drinking to cope” (i.e. reducing anxiety) and “drinking to enhance well being” (i.e. it feels good) were other common motives reported by participants.

Motives & Problem Drinking

  • CAGE scores were significantly different for those reporting internal motives of “enhancing well being” (i.e. feeling good) and “coping” (i.e. reducing anxiety).
    • The stronger the motives influence on an individuals’ drinking, the higher the individuals’ CAGE score.
  • CAGE scores were significantly different for those reporting external motives of “social” (i.e. more outgoing).
    • The more social/outgoing, the higher the CAGE score.
  • CAGE scores were not influenced by the external motive of “conforming to a friends’ behavior”.
  • “Taste” had no influence on CAGE scores.
  • “Health” had a negative influence on CAGE scores.
    • Those who reported drinking for health reasons had lower CAGE scores than those not reporting this motive for drinking.
  • CAGE scores were significantly different for wine and beer drinkers.
    • Beer drinkers had significantly higher CAGE scores than wine drinkers.
    • Spirit drinkers and premixed drink drinkers were not included in this analysis, since their subgroup was too small for statistical analysis.
  • Controlling for beverage type, men were more likely to have higher CAGE scores than women, and younger drinkers were more likely to have higher CAGE scores than older drinkers (the latter was not significant, but was trending).

What does this all mean?

To sum up, taste was the most important motivator for drinking in this study of Australian adults, with 86% of participants responding in this way.  Drinking for health reasons was also a motivator for 24% of participants, who claimed they drink because they perceive the beverage to be good for them.  Though some studies have found differences in motivators for younger drinkers, this study did not seem to find these differences, with no statistical differences found between younger and older drinkers when it came to specific motivations for drinking.

In regards to problem drinking, this study found that the desire to change internal states (i.e. wanting to feel good, cope with something, or reduce anxiety) puts individuals more at risk for problem drinking than those influenced by external factors (i.e. social context or peer pressure).  These relationships were found to be independent of age and preferred beverage, and for the most part, sex.  In other words, it didn’t matter what age participants were or what their preferred beverage type was, they still cited the same motives and scored the same CAGE scores depending upon which motives were cited.

Taste as a motivator was found to not be related to problem drinking, and health was found to be negatively associated with problem drinking.  These results seem to indicate that drinking for these positive reasons result in non-overindulgence.  Though age was not a factor when considering the internal and external motivators described in the previous paragraph, age was a factor when it came to the motive of health.  Specifically, older participants cited health as a reason for drinking more often than younger participants.  This is not surprising, considering older individuals tend to have more health problems than younger individuals, thus the desire to focus more on consuming foods and beverages that are beneficial for one’s health.

The authors stress that to those worried that promoting certain types of alcohol as “good for your health”, such as red wine, there should be no concern that this type of advertising will result in overindulgence, according to the results of this study.  In fact, those consuming alcohol because they believe it to be good for their health appear to do so in a more responsible manner.

One thing to keep in mind from this study is that the results are only specific to Australian drinkers.  It is quite possible that the same study performed in a

Photo by Evil Erin: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3049/3081308438_b1848656d2.jpg

different region would present different results.  Different cultures have different motivators for drinking, and I would not be surprised if we saw different results in another place (i.e. the United States).

Another limitation to this study is that it only included a small handful of motivators for drinking, and did not include one potentially important motivator for younger drinkers: drinking to get drunk.  This motivator is seen in a positive light in the minds of some young people, despite the negative consequences that can occur after the fact, thereby may be an important factor to consider in this type of analysis.

What do you all think of this topic?  What other limitations do you see (if any) with this study?  Are the authors missing any other big motivators that you think may change the reported outcome? Please leave your comments and participate in the discussion!

Source: Moran, C.C., and Saliba, A.J. 2012. Reasons for drinking wine and other beverages – comparison across motives in older adults. International Journal of Wine Research 4: 25-32.

Posted in Psychology

Tagged , , , , ,

Environmental Context Determines Self-Administered Alcohol Consumption Rates in Rats

Posted on March 13, 2012 by Becca| Leave a comment

Clinical research indicates that environmental context plays a very important role in altering individual responsiveness to addictive drugs.  For example, traumatic life experiences have been shown to be associated with the development of a drug addiction, or a relapse back to a former drug addiction.  This type of environmental influence on drug self-administration has also been seen in laboratory animals, such as rats.  Previous studies have found that non-resident rats (rats transferred to a separate chamber different from the one they were living in) self-administered higher levels of cocaine and amphetamines than resident rats that were presented with the drugs in their chamber of residence.  Conversely, the same study found that the opposite was found for heroin, where resident rats self-administered higher levels of the drug than non-resident rats.  Based on these results, it is suggested that environmental context and the drug type play important roles in self-administration in the rat model.

http://deerfieldranch.com/Linkimages/rats2.jpg

 

These differing responses between resident and non-resident rats and their self-administration rates of different types of drugs may, according to researchers, reflect an influence of contextual stimuli on the evaluation of the drug reward.  More specifically, researchers speculate that the environmental setting provides an ecological background against which drugs are rated as more adaptive or less adaptive.  What this means in plain English is that the sedative/depressive effects of heroin (or other depressants) are more suitable for a safe at-home environment, whereas activating/stimulating effects of cocaine (or other stimulants) are more suitable in unfamiliar, exciting environments.

For the current study presented today, the authors built upon this previous knowledge of self-administration of various drugs in different environmental contexts in the rat model, and expanded it to include alcohol.  Simply put, this study aimed to evaluate the oral self-administration of alcohol in resident and non-resident rats.  The authors predicted that alcohol self-administration in rats should be similar to heroin administration in rats, as both as depressants that display very similar symptoms in the consumer.  Specifically, the authors predicted that self-administration of alcohol would be higher in resident rats than non-resident rats.

Methods

167 male Sprague-Dawley rats between the weights of 220 and 240 grams were used for this study.  They were housed and tested in a single temperature and humidity controlled room, with continual access to food and water, except during the experimental sessions, and were kept under a 14 hour dark and 10 hour light cycle.  Rats were housed individually, and randomly assigned as resident or non-resident.

Experiment 1

Goal: To measure the intake of different solutions of alcohol in resident and non-resident rats. 

There were 12 groups of rats tested for 14 consecutive sessions.  Sessions lasted 3 hours each and took place during the dark cycle between 12pm and 3pm.  At the start of each session, food was removed, and then replaced immediately after the session ended.  Alcohol solutions were prepared fresh and at room temperature.  Bottles of solution were weighed before and after each session.

Baseline Sessions: One week after arriving at the facility, non-resident rats underwent 3 sessions to measure baseline water intake in their home cages (to compare when in non-resident cages)

First Baseline Session: Non-resident rats were given the alcohol test solution in their home cages to measure their baseline intake (to compare when in non-resident cages).  Three groups of rats received three ethanol solutions using 95% ethanol diluted with tap water: 2.5%v/v, 5%v/v, and 10%v/v.  Three other groups of rats were given a commercial white wine (Castellino, 11% alcohol by volume) diluted with tap water to produce the same levels of alcohol as the ethanol solutions: 2.5%v/v, 5%v/v, and 10%v/v. 

One Bottle Test Sessions:  Immediately before the experiment, non-resident rats were transferred into the testing chamber.  One bottle containing the same alcohol solution as the baseline session was provided to each rat.  At the end of each session, non-resident rats were returned to their home cages.

Two Bottle Test Sessions:  These sessions were nearly identical to the one bottle sessions, however during these sessions, two bottles of water were provided to each rat (choice), with one containing the alcohol test solution, and the other containing water.

Procedures for Resident Rats:  The procedures for resident rats were nearly identical to those for the non-resident rats, except that resident rats were tested in their home cage and were not transferred into any other cages throughout the experiment.  There was the same number of groups of resident rats as there were non-resident rats.

Experiment 2

Goal:  After analyzing Experiment 1, the researchers found that there were significant differences between the resident rat groups and the non-resident rat groups.  Therefore, the goal of Experiment 2 was to determine if these groups also differed in their intake of water.

Procedures for Experiment 2 were almost identical to the procedures for Experiment 1, except that the alcohol test solution was replaced by water.

Experiment 3

Goal:  The goal of Experiment 3 was to determine if there were any differences between resident and non-resident rats in the intake of a saccharine-quinine solution.

This was the goal of Experiment 3 since research has shown that there is a relationship between the preference for ethanol and a preference for bitter-sweet solutions in the rat model.  Some studies suggest that saccharine-quinine solutions more approximately reflect the bitter-sweet taste of alcohol solutions.

The procedures of Experiment 3 were nearly identical to the procedures in Experiments 1 and 2, except during this experiment, the alcohol (or water) solution was replaced by a saccharin-quinine solution.

For All Experiments

Each bottle that contained test solutions or water was checked repeatedly for any dripping.  For 7 days in a row, each bottle was weighed before being placed in a cage, and again after the 3 hour experimental session.  The average differences between the weights of the bottles were subtracted from the raw data.  Intake data was corrected by body weight, which was measured twice per week.  Intake of pure ethanol in Experiment 1 was calculated after correcting for concentration and relative density.

Results

Experiment 1

  •       There were no significant differences in body weights at the beginning of the experiment between resident and non-resident rats.
  •       All groups increased body weight throughout the duration of the experiment.
  •       Weight gain was significantly greater in the resident group than the non-resident group.

o   This was expected, as alcohol intake was higher in the resident group than the non-resident group.

§  Weight gain x environment interactions were not quite significant (approaching significance).  This means weight gain was similar between resident and non-resident rats.

§  There were no other significant interactions.

  •       During the 1 bottle test, alcohol intake was a function of environmental context, with no significant differences in the baseline intake between groups.
  •       Alcohol intake was significantly greater in the resident group than in the non-resident group.
  •       Alcohol intake was a function of concentration, though there was no environment x concentration interaction.
  •       Differences between resident and non-resident groups appeared to be greatest at the 5% concentration (up to 2 times greater).
  •       There was a significant effect of session, though no significant interactions with session and environment, session and concentration, or session and test solution.

o   As sessions wore on, resident rats greatly increased their alcohol intake, whereas non-resident rats greatly reduced their alcohol intake.

  •       There were no differences between ethanol solution intake and wine solution intake.
  •       For the 2 bottle tests, preference for alcohol over water was a function of both the environment and the concentration.

o   Intake of alcohol solutions relative to intake of water was greater in the resident rat groups than the non-resident rat groups.

§  This was due to a preference for alcohol over water in the resident rat group.

  •       The effect of environment was greatest at 5% alcohol concentrations.

o   Alcohol was preferred to water at concentrations of 2.5% and 5%.

o   Water was preferred to alcohol at the 10% concentration.

Experiment 2

  •       There were no significant differences between resident and non-resident rats in the intake of water at baseline or the entirety of the experiment, nor were there any significant interactions between any of the other variables.

Experiment 3

  •       There was no effect of environment on saccharin-quinine intake between resident and non-resident rats.

o   Resident and non-resident rats differed when non-resident rats were transferred into another cage during the first session of the one bottle test.

o   There was a significant effect of session, but not a significant effect of environment, and nor were there any significant interactions between the two.

  •       During the 2 bottle test sessions, there was a significant effect of choice, but not of environment, and there was only one significant interaction between them (the three-way choice x environment x session interaction).

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, the authors concluded that alcohol self-administration in the rat is influence by the environmental setting in which that alcohol is consumed.  Specifically, they found that alcohol intake was greater for those rats living in the experimental chambers than those rats temporarily moved into an experimental chamber while living in a completely separate chamber while not undergoing testing. 

As far as the type of alcohol is concerned, it didn’t seem to matter if the rats were consuming ethanol alone or wine.  In regards to the saccharin-quinine results, it appears as though this choice was influenced in a different manner than the alcohol solutions.  Resident rats increased their intake of the test solution during Experiments 1 and 3, while non-resident rates decreased their intake of the test solution during the experiments.  During later sessions of the experiment, this effect of changing intake preferences rapidly declined when it came to testing the saccharin-quinine solutions, but not the alcohol intake.  The authors suggest this means that when exposed to new tastes, the rats are a little cautious, but then this cautiousness wears off over time.

As the authors predicted, resident rats consumed greater amounts of alcohol than non-resident rats, which they attribute to the depressant characteristics of the drug and the results of previous studies with heroin.  While a stimulating drug, such as cocaine, would be more likely experienced as more suitable in a strange, exciting environment, a depressant such as heroin (or in this case, alcohol), would be more suitable for safe, comfortable environments such as the home.

Overall, the authors of this study claim that based on these results, this paper shows at the preclinical level that setting or environment plays a very important role for the self-administration of alcohol.  These results seem to complement the one survey study of humans that concluded that there was a clear preference for heavy drinkers to consume larger amounts of alcohol in the comfort of their own home.  These results could have many implications in the health and psychological fields.

I’d love to hear what you all think!  Please feel free to comment below!

Source: Testa, A., Nencini, P., and Badiani, A. 2011. The role of setting in the self-administration of alcohol in the rat. Psychopharmacology 215: 749-760.

DOI: 10.1007/s00213-011-2176-9
I am not a health professional, nor do I pretend to be. Please consult your doctor before altering your alcohol consumption habits. Do not consume alcohol if you are under the age of 21. Do not drink and drive. Enjoy responsibly!

Posted in Psychology

Tagged , , , , ,

“O Fortuna, this wine is powerful!”: The Influence of Music on the Perception of Taste

Posted on December 16, 2011 by Becca| 6 Comments

A side note before we launch into today’s review: Today’s post marks the 50th review of current scientific research related to wine on The Academic Wino! It’s the 71st post overall, but 50th major study review!  Seems hard to believe I’ve cranked through 50 papers already!

There have been countless studies investigating the effect of music on the psychology and behavior of people.  Speaking from personal experience, when I’m listening to loud, fast rock music, I tend to drive faster than if I were listening to classical, jazz, or talk radio.  Personal behavior can also be altered from other stimuli as well, such as visual or tactile cues.  For example, studies have found that the color, temperature, texture, and viscosity of foods affect the way they taste to the person consuming them.  Specifically, one study found that potato chips were rated as tasting significantly fresher when the sound made from biting into them was louder.

More recently, one study proposed that auditory stimuli occurring simultaneously with gestation may influence the quality or taste of that food item.  In one of their experiments, participants were asked to consume bacon and egg flavored ice cream while listening to sounds of either bacon sizzling or barnyard chickens milling about.  Their results showed that the bacon and egg ice cream tasted significantly better when listening to sounds of bacon sizzling than listening to sounds of chickens in the barnyard.  Other studies have found similar results, with loud background noise increasing the perceived crunchiness of food.

http://nowandzin.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/wine-and-music.jpg

More specific to wine, many studies have examined the effect of background music on wine purchases.  For example, one study found that background music of the classical genre played in a wine cellar resulted in more expensive purchases than background music of the pop genre.  Another study found that playing French music resulted in more French wines being purchased, and also that playing German music resulted in more German wines being purchased.  Many studies have found that classical music in the background is correlated with more expensive wine purchases than other types of music.

Today’s study, recently published in the British Journal of Psychology, took the results and theories of all these previous studies and examined the idea that emotional connotations of the background music may influence the perception of the taste of wine.

Methods

Music for this study was chosen based on a short pilot study.  5 students under the age of 25 were selected to listen to four different pieces of music, and to identify which were “powerful and heavy”, “subtle and refined”, “zingy and refreshing”, and “mellow and soft”.  The responses from all 5 participants were identical, and corresponded to what was expected.  The pieces chosen for the study were Carmina Burana by Orff (“powerful and heavy”), Waltz of the Flowers by Tchaikovsky (“subtle and refined”), Just Can’t Get Enough by Nouvelle Vague (“zingy and refreshing”), and Slow Breakdown by Michael Brook (“mellow and soft”).

The participants in this study were all under the age of 25 (mean=21.66, standard deviation=2.49).  There were a total of 250 participates, 125 of which were male, and 125 of which were female.  Participants were recruited on a busy university campus between noon and 3pm over 15 consecutive work days, and were offered a free glass of wine in return for answering the study questions about its taste.  Potential participants were randomly recruited using a random numbered list.  Participants were asked not to drive within 3 hours of finishing the study.

The design of the experiment was an independent subjects design.  Twenty five participants (12 males and 13 females, or 12 females and 13 males) tasted each type of wine while simultaneously listening to each type of music (or a no music control).  After finishing the wine, participants were asked to rate its taste on a scale of 0-10 for each of the four rating scales (“powerful and heavy”, “subtle and refined”, “zingy and refreshing”, and “mellow and soft”), with 0 meaning the wine did not have this characteristic at all, and 10 meaning the wine very much did have the characteristic.  Participants were also asked to rate from 0-10 how much they liked the wine, and from 0-10 how much they liked the music.  Participants were also asked to identify which characteristic matched each source of music.  Those participants that did not answer the final question correctly were excluded from the data set and new participants recruited to replace them (only 4 participants fell into this category).

During the study, participants were asked to gargle twice for 10 seconds with tap water to cleanse their palates.  Then, they were given a 125mL glass of either Montes Alpha 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon or Chardonnay.  After receiving the wine, participants were taken to one of five rooms where music was playing at 70dB and were asked to sit and drink it.  Music was played (or not played in the case of the control) on a continuous loop, with the type of music in each room changing every three days.  Participants were instructed to pace their drinking in order to finish the wine in 5 minutes, and to not talk with anyone else in the room.  After finishing the wine, participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire described above.

Results

  •       There was no significant effect of type of wine on the outcome of the experiment (i.e. participants did not seem to prefer one over the other0.
  •       There was a significant effect of the audio condition.

o   The highest scores on each rating scales were given when the corresponding music was playing.

§  What this means is that the wine was perceived as more “powerful and heavy” when the “powerful and heavy” music was playing, etc.

§  Participants appeared to perceive the taste of the wine in a manner that was consistent with the type of music that was playing.

§  These results are consistent with the results of other studies that show music having an influence on commercial behaviors.

Conclusions

While this study was short and sweet, it was also very fascinating.  The results clearly show that participants’ perception of taste changed with different types of background music.  These results add to the already large set of data regarding the influence of music on consumer behavior. 

Of course, this study is not without its’ faults.  The study only examined participates of a very specific age, nor does it make any attempt to determine prior wine knowledge of each participant, and whether they are aware of these types of experiments prior to participating, all of which could potentially influence the outcome.  By including a wide range of ages, while also including participants with varying levels of wine knowledge, perhaps a greater understanding of the mechanisms involved could be achieved.

Another factor that may be limiting in this experiment is the type of music studied.  Perhaps by including several genres for each characteristic (i.e. more than just one genre for the “powerful and heavy”, ““subtle and refined”, “zingy and refreshing”, and “mellow and soft” characteristics), a greater understanding of the mechanisms may be understood.

Overall, this short and sweet study provided a small, yet important, addition to the existing evidence regarding the psychological effect of music on perception of taste.  From this research, there are many potential future studies, of which I will leave it up to you, the reader, to decide what might be an appropriate next step. 

What do you think is the next step in this line of research?  Any general/specific thoughts?  Please feel free to comment below!

Source:  North, A.C. 2011. The effect of background music on the taste of wine. British Journal of Psychology (print version of this issue not yet available; online only).

DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02072.x
I am not a health professional, nor do I pretend to be. Please consult your doctor before altering your alcohol consumption habits. Do not consume alcohol if you are under the age of 21. Do not drink and drive. Enjoy responsibly!

Posted in Psychology

Tagged , , , , ,